[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 140 (Monday, September 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13200-S13207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2469

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank you for the recognition, and I 
speak to amendment No. 2469, which was earlier offered, which has to do 
with the growth formula provided for in this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be added as a cosponsor to 
the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me try to be succinct as to how 
this amendment would change the Dole bill. Essentially what the Dole 
bill does, as drafted, is present a growth fund for the next 5 years of 
$877 million. It then submits a formula under which that growth fund is 
disbursed. The formula would provide funds only to 19 States. You 
cannot convince me that only 19 States are going to grow in terms of 
poor families in this Nation.
  So what I have tried to do is come up with a fair formula that 
measures the growth of poor families. The House bill has a formula in 
it which measures the growth of people and then applies that to this 
bill. Ours is very similar to the House, with one distinction, and the 
distinction is that it would use the census data to count the increase 
in poor families to determine how the growth money is spent. The House 
uses the census data to count the increase in the general population. 
Then, the way in which the growth money is spent is simply: The 
percentage of growth is divided into the overall total growth. In that 
way, every State is accommodated, and the growth funds are distributed 
to each state proportionate to its share of the total growth.
  Specifically, it would require the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to publish every 2 years data relating to the incidence of 
poverty. The methodology employed mirrors title 13 of the United States 
Code, section 141(a) of the census statute, and as I have said, is the 
same as the House welfare reform bill. So people should know that what 
we are doing is simply following the way the census produces the 
material, under current law, and then empowering the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to disburse funds according to the results of 
that data, and proportionate to each state's share of the total growth 
in poor people.
  There is no additional cost associated with this amendment.
  I would like to add that all States are being held harmless; in other 
words, no State's grant would be reduced if that State experiences a 
decline in poor population. According to the present population 
projections, four States are expected to experience an actual decline 
of population. They are Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode 
Island. These States are all held harmless in this amendment.
  If, of course, the projections prove wrong and those States do 
experience an increase, because no one can actually predict future 
growth, they will receive their fair share of the growth formula.
  If I may, I would like to contrast this with the approach taken in 
the underlying bill. Eight hundred seventy-seven million dollars over 5 
years is authorized in this bill to accommodate growth. As I said, only 
19 States are funded with this growth formula. Under the Dole bill, the 
19 States receive automatic additional funding, 2.5 percent of their 
1996 grant, in each of fiscal years 1997 to 2000 if, one, their State's 
welfare spending is less than the national average level of State 
spending and, two, their rate of population growth is greater than the 
national average population growth.
  For reasons which are unclear, certain States are deemed as 
qualifying if their level of State welfare spending per poor person is 
less than 35 percent of the national average level of State welfare 
spending per poor person in fiscal year 1996.
  So Federal taxpayers are being asked to spend almost $1 billion over 
5 years in the name of growth.
 But, in fact, the result is that States that, until now, have spent 
less than the average level of State spending in assisting their poor 
will now be subsidized by taxpayers from all 50 States. I think that is 
plain wrong. The State with the greatest growth--and that is 
California--is significantly disadvantaged because its funding is 
frozen for the next 5 years. I have distributed a letter with our 
proposal, with the Dole-Hutchison formula in it and with the 
difference. So there are three charts on everyone's desk tonight so 
everybody can look up their State.

  Certainly, the 19 States recognized in the Dole bill--and I know 
Senator Hutchison will comment on this--will be cut back somewhat so 
that everybody could have a fair share of the growth fund based on the 
actual growth of poor people in their State as determined by the Bureau 
of the Census. What could be fairer than that? If in the census you 
achieve more people, the growth fund is there to give you your percent 
share of the total growth fund.
  So I will yield the floor for the moment. I know Senator Hutchison 
would like to debate this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will be managing the time on this 
amendment for our side. Mr. President, I want to lay out exactly what 
my amendment does, or my formula, the Dole-Hutchison formula, does. 
Senator Santorum is going to have to leave in 7 minutes, so I would 
like to ask him to speak for 2 or 3 minutes, and then I will lay out 
the parameters of the Dole-Hutchison formula so that everyone 
understands why it is the fairest formula.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for 
yielding.
  As I discussed the other night, I want to congratulate the Senator 
from Texas for working diligently in coming up with this formula. It is 
a fair formula. On the surface, it sounds like the Feinstein formula is 
fair because it is based on growth in poverty population.
  What the Feinstein formula ignores is how we got to the allocation in 
the first place. In other words, how did we get to today? It is based 
on not how many poor children there are in California, Pennsylvania, or 
New Mexico; it gets to the State today based on how much the State of 
California ponied up, as did the States of Texas and Pennsylvania. As a 
result, you have States like California--and Pennsylvania being another 
one and New York--who had large welfare contributions. They put up a 
substantial State match. As a result, they got more Federal dollars. If 
you put up more State money, you got more Federal money. So you had 
certain States who were more generous with their welfare--or more 
progressive, some would say--and put up more dollars.
  Well, now the match is gone. There is no longer a match required 
under the Dole substitute, the bill we are going to pass. So to suggest 
that we should now take a formula based on what a State match was and 
apply that in the future, based on what the growth in the poverty 
population is, already gives those States that had high State matches 
an artificial advantage in the first place.
  So what the Hutchison formula tries to do is say--starting at this 
inequity, because the Hutchison formula holds every State harmless and 
says that, from there on, we are going to have the States who get less 
per child under current law get more money over time to equal out what 
the Pennsylvanias and Californias and New Yorks get. So her growth 
formula targets the low-benefit States that are growing and allows them 
to catch up with these Federal dollars.
  It is fair in the sense that these are block granted funds and there 
is no match required anymore. California does not want to spend a penny 
on this. They will not anymore because we have a 75 percent maintenance 
of effort. But California can reduce their contribution, which would be 
a lot more to their State budget than Mississippi's reduction in their 
welfare contribution. So they have a lot more flexibility under the 
current law. There is no match requirement except to the extent of the 
75 percent maintenance of effort. 

[[Page S 13201]]

  This is a fair way to make up the difference over a period of time. 
As Senator Hutchison will very articulately tell you, they are still at 
the short end of the stick because the per child expenditure for a 
child from California, New York, or Pennsylvania will still be less 
after 7 years than they will be in taxes, even though it is a block-
granted formula. We try to make up this inequity. I congratulate her 
for her tenacity in dealing with this issue. This was the toughest 
issue to deal with. Any time you try to figure out how the money is 
allocated, you get all sorts of parochial interests that jump to the 
floor. She was able to stick in there and handle it and bring people 
together. It is one of the principal reasons this bill is on the floor 
and in shape to pass the Senate.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes of our time. 
I want to start by thanking the Senator from Pennsylvania. I appreciate 
all of his efforts on this bill. He is one of the first people who 
understood the balance in the formula.
  Mr. President, this formula is very carefully balanced. That is why 
it is fair. The challenge we had was to make a fair formula in a 
totally reformed welfare system with a 5-year block grant.
  Now, here was the problem. You have high-welfare States that gain in 
the beginning because they are block granted for 5 years. These are 
States that have put more into their welfare spending and therefore 
have gotten more out. A State that has put more in has also gotten more 
Federal matching funds. Therefore, they have gotten more total AFDC 
dollars. Now, you have low-benefit States that have not put up as much 
money. My State is 35th in per capita income and may not have been able 
to put up as much. So they have gotten fewer Federal dollars.
  In we come with welfare reform. Now we are going to lessen the State 
requirement. We will have no State requirement at all in the last 2 
years of this 5-year plan. So we have to reform the formula as well, to 
keep the low-benefit States that are growing from being in a desperate 
situation. So the challenge was not to take from anyone, but to allow 
these low-benefit, high-growth States to be able to win in the end, so 
that they march toward parity.
  If I can say one thing about this formula, it is that we have a goal 
of parity at some point in the future. I would like to be at parity 
today; so would Senator Domenici, so would Senator Nickles, and so 
would Senator Gramm. We would like to be at parity right now. But even 
after 5 years, our States will not be at parity. But we know that we 
have to make accommodations so that everyone can feel that they have 
gained something from welfare reform. So we are willing to move slowly 
toward parity, which should be the goal of this country--for every poor 
person to have the same basic general grant in welfare. My solution, 
the Dole-Hutchison formula, does exactly that.
  Some have said that food stamps make up for inequity. This is not 
true. If you put AFDC and food stamps together, which gives you the 
fairest picture, even after 5 years with the Dole-Hutchison formula, 
here is what you have. The higher welfare States like California that 
are frozen still get more than their percent of the poverty population 
in Federal dollars at the end of 5 years. California will get 14.41 
percent of the Federal dollars under my formula, whereas, they have 
14.1 percent of the poverty population. So they will be getting $141 
million more than their actual share of the poverty population. Because 
they are frozen at the higher level, they are going to be big winners 
in the beginning, and they will still not be losers at the end.
  Hawaii, for instance, will have double its poverty population in 
Federal benefits. New York will have 9.94 percent of all the Federal 
AFDC dollars, whereas it has 7.6 percent of the poverty population. 
Massachusetts will get 1.99 percent of the Federal dollars, whereas, it 
has 1.7 percent of the poverty population. Michigan will get 4.16 
percent of the dollars, whereas, it has 3.6 percent of the poverty 
population.
 Washington State will get 1.96 percent of the total Federal dollars 
whereas they have 1.5 percent of the poverty population.

  Now, these are States that are going to be frozen at the higher 
levels. That is why these States win even though they are frozen. If 
you take their Federal dollars frozen plus their food stamps they still 
come out ahead of their poverty population percent.
  Now, what is wrong with the Feinstein amendment? Let me say that the 
Feinstein amendment, she has done her homework. I admire the Senator 
from California very much. Here is what is wrong with this amendment. 
It redistributes the growth even to high-benefit States so they get a 
double advantage. They get a high Federal benefit in the beginning and 
they get the growth.
  So what happens? They increase in poverty requirements, which are an 
incentive to even the high-welfare States to continue having growing 
poverty statistics.
  The second thing that is wrong with the Feinstein amendment is parity 
will never be reached. We will never reach the goal in this country to 
have general parity across the Nation of all of the AFDC grants.
  Let me give some examples of the difference between the Dole-
Hutchison formula and what Senator Feinstein's formula would do to the 
poor States.
  California receives $1,016 per poor person now. Alabama receives $148 
per poor person, and yet under the Feinstein amendment Alabama will 
lose $11 million more under her formula than they would get under mine 
because they will grow under mine because they are poor.
  Arkansas, $137 per poor person as compared to $1,016 from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The 6 minutes of the Senator 
has expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to be extended 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining on her 
time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me finish this thought, and I want 
to yield the floor to Senator Domenici for 2 minutes.
  We have the poor States that will continue to lose under the 
Feinstein amendment.
  The third thing that is wrong with the Feinstein amendment is that it 
directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine poverty 
estimates by means of sampling, estimation, or any other method that 
the Secretary determines will produce reliable data.
  Now, Mr. President, that is a hole as big as a Mack truck. Who knows 
what the formula might be? We just cannot live with that. We must have 
something that we can count on that will not be jiggered or changed 
over the years, to be considered fair.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I yield the Senator from New 
Mexico 2 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, thank you.
  Senator Hutchison, let me just say we actually should call the new 
formula in the Dole amendment not the Dole-Hutchison but the Hutchison-
Dole.
  I commend the Senator also for the tremendous job done in trying to 
create parity and what I perceive to be fairness. I have great 
admiration for anybody that tries to get more for their State. 
Obviously, I admire the distinguished Senator from California for 
trying to get more for California.
  Essentially, to just give an example, California and New York each 
start off with more Federal spending per poor person than New Mexico, 
Texas, Alabama, and Virginia combined. Let me put it one more time, 
just taking California. California starts off with more Federal 
spending per poor person than New Mexico, Texas, Alabama, and Virginia 
combined.
  Now, if we are going to have a formula that perpetuates that 
disparity, then why would we from States like New Mexico, Texas, 
Alabama, Virginia, and many others, want to be part of this change in 
our Federal Government's approach to the welfare system? Why we would 
want to join and put our States and our poor people in a perpetual 
inferiority position--not a little bit, but a dramatic difference.
  The Senator from Texas has stated the difference. We will never catch 
up.
  The distinguished Senator from Texas did not come up with a formula 
that would take from the rich States, the States that have harvested 
the program so well. We did not decide in our work together--I worked 
on it with you, the Senator from New Mexico worked with you--to take 
from them. 

[[Page S 13202]]

  We just said do not continue to leave the poorer States in a 
perpetual state of disparity beyond any recognition. There will be a 
welfare program in New Mexico under this that will be one-third of that 
in New York. My State will lose $23 million. It is one of the hardest 
hit States. There are many more like it.
  I say to the Senator from California, good luck on getting things for 
California but on this one, this formula will not work because it is 
not fair. I thank the Senator from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Dole substitute to H.R. 4 authorizes 
a supplemental appropriation of $878 million over fiscal years 1997 
through 2000 to be allocated to certain States in addition to the funds 
they would receive under the temporary assistance for needy families 
block grant. States qualify for the supplemental funds if one, total 
population--not just poor population--growth in fiscal year 1996 is 
above the national average and State welfare expenditures per poor 
person are at or below 50 percent of the national average, or two, 
State welfare expenditures per poor person are at or below 35 percent 
of the national average, regardless of population growth.
  States have a one-time opportunity to qualify in fiscal year 1997. If 
they do, they will receive a 2.5-percent increase in their block grant 
funding each year, 1997-2000, regardless of whether they continue to 
meet the eligibility standards in subsequent years. Likewise, States 
that fail to qualify in fiscal year 1997 are excluded from receiving 
any of the supplemental funds even if they were to quality later. The 
practical effect of the provision would be to boost cumulative funding 
in 19 so-called growth States--but not California--by 10.4 percent. The 
remaining 31 States, including New York, would be held harmless; their 
allocations under the main block grant would remain frozen through 
fiscal year 2000, Not surprisingly, fully two-thirds of the Senators 
who represent the winner States are Republicans.
  Mr. President, there are major flaws with this provision that makes 
me wonder just how serious its proponents are. First, general 
population growth is not a reliable proxy for an increase in a State's 
share of the growth of poor people who qualify for welfare benefits. 
Many rapid-growth States attract new residents precisely because their 
economies are strong and work opportunities are good. It is entirely 
possible that a State experiencing rapid growth due to economic 
expansion could see its share of poor people decline. Conversely, a 
slow-growing Rustbelt State could see its share of total population 
decline but its share of poor people eligible for welfare increase.
  The second problem is that supplemental fund will be made available 
only to those growth States whose State expenditures per poor person 
are at or below 50 percent of the national average. And then there is 
the curious provision that rewards nongrowth States if their State 
expenditures per poor person are at or below 35 percent of the national 
average.
  A State could have a large share of childless working or elderly 
poor. These individuals would dilute per capita welfare expenditures 
even though they would not be welfare recipients. More importantly, are 
now about to enter the business of rewarding States who will not spend 
their own resources on their own poor people? Are we going to start 
punishing States that do commit their own resources by reallocating 
scarce Federal funds away from them? I will have much more to say on 
this subject when we take up the formula amendment the senior Senator 
from Florida has offered. Suffice it to say at this point that I will 
not stand by and allow our Federal system to be wrecked in one fell 
swoop.
  Senator Feinstein's amendment is identical to the provision in the 
bill the House passed pertaining to supplemental block grant funds. 
Each State's annual share of the supplemental block grant, if any, 
would be proportionate to its share of the increase in the number of 
poor people nationwide. New York, theoretically, could be eligible for 
supplemental block grant funds.
  The Feinstein amendment requires the Census Bureau to update and 
publish data relating to the incidence of poverty for each State, 
county, and local school district unit of government every 2 years, 
commencing in fiscal year 1996 and authorizes an annual appropriation 
of $1.5 million for this purpose.
  Mr. President, I support the Feinstein amendment, but it does have 
two flaws. First, an increase in the number of poor people--while 
better than the proxy used in the underlying substitute--still is not a 
precise proxy for an increase in the number of poor people who would be 
welfare beneficiaries. Once again, low-income men and women without 
dependent children and the elderly poor, for instance, would not be 
AFDC recipients but would count in the population tallies that 
determine whether a State qualifies for the supplemental block grant. 
More importantly, while updating poverty data more frequently is a 
desirable public policy goal, which I support, statisticians are not 
confident yet that accurate subcounty counts are possible in any 
context other than the decennial census.
  Collecting data more frequently typically will harm slow-growing 
States like New York when the data sets are plugged into allocation 
formulas. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that poverty data do not 
reflect regional or State-by-State differences in the cost of living. A 
family of our just above the poverty threshold living in New York City 
is demonstrably worse off than a family of four just below the 
threshold living in rural Mississippi. Research indicates that 
differences in the cost of living can be as great as 50 percent.
  Each year, in collaboration with the Taubman Center for State and 
Local Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, I publish 
a document entitled ``The Federal Budget and the States'' that details 
the flow of funds for the previous fiscal year. Aficionados of the 
report know that I refer to it as the ``Fisc.'' I send a copy to each 
Senator every summer and hope that my colleagues read it. At any rate, 
the most recent edition of the Fisc contains, for the second year, the 
``Friar/Leonard state cost of living index,'' which is named for its 
cocreators, my coauthors, Monica E. Friar, an indefatigable research 
assistant, and Professor Herman B. Leonard, academic dean of the 
teaching programs and Baker Professor of Public Finance at the Kennedy 
School. If we were to apply the Friar/Leonard index to subnational 
poverty statistics, we would find that New York's 1992 poverty rate 
jumps from the 18th highest rate nationwide to the 6th highest.
  One of the amendments I offered last, Friday would require the Census 
Bureau to develop cost of living index values for each of the States--
at a minimum, and at the sub-State level, if practicable--and apply 
those values to the national poverty threshold in determining the 
number of poor people for each State. The index value for the United 
States would be 100. A State such as New York might have a hypothetical 
index value of 106 while Mississippi might have an index value of 94. 
Applying the index values for the two States to the national poverty 
threshold would increase the income limit and hence the number of poor 
people in New York and decrease the income limit and the number of poor 
people in Mississippi.
  Earlier this year, a National Academy of Sciences [NSA] panel of 
experts released a congresssionally commissioned study on redefining 
poverty. The report, edited by Constance F. Cirro and Robert T. 
Michael, is entitled ``Measuring Poverty: A New Approach.''
  According to a Congressional Research Service reviews,

       The NAS panel (one member among the 12 member panel 
     dissented with the majority recommendations) makes several 
     recommendations which, if fully adopted, could dramatically 
     alter the way poverty in the U.S. is measured, how Federal 
     funds are allotted to States, and how eligibility for many 
     Federal programs is determined. The recommended poverty 
     measures would be based on more items in the family budget, 
     would take major noncash benefits and taxes into account, and 
     would be adjusted for regional differences in living costs.
       . . . Under current measures the share of the poor 
     population living in each region in 1992 was: Northeast: 
     16.9%, Midwest: 21.7%, South: 40.0%, and West: 21.4%. Under 
     the proposed new measure, the estimated share in each region 
     would be: Northeast 18.9% Midwest: 20.2%, South: 36.4%, and 
     West: 24.5%.


[[Page S 13203]]

  The CRS report, ``Redefining Poverty in the United States: National 
Academy of Science Panel Recommendations,'' was written by Thomas P. 
Gabe.
  Mr. President, despite the flaws I have just mentioned, the Feinstein 
amendment is enormously superior to the underlying provision, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the senior 
Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to extend that 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think I only have--
  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. GRAHAM. This would be 90 seconds in addition.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I get 4 
more minutes because I have two other speakers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I ask the Senator from Florida if he would yield 
without losing any of the time for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.


                    Amendment No. 2575, as Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
unanimous consent that it be modified. It is an amendment on my part to 
conform the amendment on the family cap to the Dole amendment as 
offered.
  My previous amendment was in anticipation of the amendment. This just 
makes it conform with the Dole amendment. I ask that it be filed as 
such and take the place of my previously filed amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
  Mr. President, I withdraw my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       Strike the matter inserted in lieu of the matter on page 
     49, line 20, through page 50, line 5, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(c) State Option To Deny Assistance for Children Born to 
     Families Receiving Assistance.--At the option of the State to 
     which a grant is made under section 403 may provide that the 
     grant shall not be used to provide assistance for a minor 
     child who is born to--
       ``(1) a recipient of assistance under the program funded 
     under this part; or
       ``(2) an individual who received such benefits at any time 
     during the 10-month period ending with the birth of the 
     child.
                           Amendment No. 2469

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise just to put the Senate on notice 
that this is not the only alternative to the formula that we will have 
an opportunity to consider during the debate on the welfare reform 
bill.
  There will be other amendments that will be offered by Senator 
Bumpers, others, and myself tomorrow which go to the more fundamental 
issue.
  That fundamental issue is that not only as the Presiding Officer has 
correctly pointed out have we changed the status quo by no longer 
requiring a local effort, and therefore continuing a formula whose 
numbers were predicated on that effort, is irrational.
  We go beyond that. We impose new obligations on the States, 
particularly in the areas of child care and preparation for work. We 
are going to be requiring essentially the same obligation from each of 
the 50 States with enormously different amounts of Federal resources in 
order to reach those obligations. There are some States that will have 
to spend over 80 percent of their Federal money in order to meet the 
new Federal mandates. Other States can reach those Federal mandates 
with 40 percent or less of the Federal money.
  So I suggest this is not just an issue of allocating money between 
Texas, California, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Florida, or the other 
States. It goes to the fundamental issue of: Can we achieve the result 
that this bill is intended to achieve, which is to assist people 
through appropriate State action to move from welfare dependency to the 
independence of work?
  My suggestion is that we will not be able to achieve that objective, 
and therefore I urge the amendment as offered by my good friend, the 
Senator from California, be defeated and, frankly, that tomorrow we be 
prepared to engage in a very fundamental debate about how we are going 
to allocate resources that, in my opinion, is critical to whether this 
goal of welfare to work is attainable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment of the Senator from 
California.
  I appreciate what she is trying to accomplish. But under her formula, 
as I calculate it, California would receive fully 20 percent of the 
supplemental amount already appropriated in the bill. Under the 
Hutchison formula, not a single State would lose any block grant 
funding but there is an adjustment for those particularly high growth 
States and States that are well below the national average on the 
receipt of Federal funds for welfare spending.
  Everybody has a different formula which helps them. Senator Feinstein 
is only trying to help her constituents.
  But if we get bogged down in a welfare formula fight, there is a good 
possibility that welfare reform could be derailed in the Senate.
  Realizing that, a group of Senators early on, under the leadership of 
Senator Hutchison, came up with a formula that, in a small way, begins 
to recognize the need to distribute welfare funds in a more equitable 
manner.
  The point is this: States that are currently well below the national 
average in receipt of Federal funds and State welfare spending and 
States that will experience higher than average growth in population 
should receive a greater share of the ``growth'' formula. The Hutchison 
formula accomplishes this by giving States that meet these criteria a 
2.5-percent increase per year in block grant funding starting in fiscal 
year 1997. Under this formula, no State loses any block grant funding 
and 17 States with particular needs get an increase. So, in States like 
Mississippi, where AFDC payments are the lowest in the Nation, a small 
stride will be made toward allocating funding in a way that treats poor 
children more equitably. And, in States like Arizona, where population 
growth is expected to be well above the national average over the next 
5 years, a small movement toward equity in funding distribution is also 
achieved.
  The Feinstein amendment, on the other hand, is based solely on 
increases in incidences of poverty. That will upset the balance that 
was achieved earlier on the funding formula.
  It is based solely on increases in poverty--which can be a built-in 
incentive for States to keep people in poverty in order to receive 
increases in Federal funding.
  It will reward States like California and New York, which already 
take a huge chunk of the Federal pot with even additional Federal 
dollars. Under the Feinstein amendment, 20 percent of the supplemental 
amount already appropriated in the bill will go to California. This is 
not fair.
  Under the Feinstein amendment, California's spending per person in 
poverty will remain well above the national average while Arizona will 
continue to hover around the national average. And, under Feinstein, 
other States like Mississippi and Texas, will not even reach the 
national average in spending by the year 2000.
  Under the Feinstein amendment, States that are poor and growing will 
continue to be poor and growing without the necessary 10.4 percent 
increase that the Hutchison formula would provide. California, which 
already receives three times more in Federal funding per poor child--
$1,016 per child--than a child in Arizona--$361 per child--will receive 
a much larger increase than Arizona.
  Since there will no longer be a Federal/State match required in 
welfare spending under the Dole welfare bill, there must be a movement 
toward equity in Federal welfare funding to the States. We cannot 
expend all of our resources in just a few States.
 
[[Page S 13204]]

  The Hutchison formula is a very fair formula and I urge my colleagues 
to reject the amendment of the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I just want to say this formula would 
not have come about without Senator Kyl and Senator Mack, who is the 
next speaker and I want to yield the remainder of my time tonight to 
Senator Mack from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute and 10 
seconds.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the Hutchison formula has been 
inappropriately referred to as a ``supplemental'' grant to States. This 
is a misleading characterization of the additional moneys provided in 
this legislation. It implies that certain States have been able to 
negotiate a sort of slush fund or bonus for themselves unfairly.
  In reality the Hutchison formula in the underlying legislation begins 
to chip away at historical inequities between States due to the Federal 
Government's present system of awarding AFDC moneys.
  This debate is and should be about equity.
  The Feinstein amendment not only undermines an honest attempt to 
provide some equity and parity between States but it does so in a way 
that in essence rewards States for increasing the number of people 
living in poverty each year.
  This policy, Mr. President, runs counter to the welfare reform bill's 
goal of encouraging States to get people off welfare and into work. Any 
incentives that we create to reward States for reducing their welfare 
caseloads would be nullified by Senator Feinstein's amendment.
  The Hutchison formula provides funds for States which have been 
historically below the national average of Federal welfare spending and 
at the same time experiencing an above average population growth. These 
qualifiers appropriately identify those States with the most need and 
begins to move those States, albeit modestly, toward parity.
  California currently receives $1,016 per person living in poverty 
compared to the $363 Florida receives per poor person living in 
poverty. Under the Hutchison formula, in the year 2000, Florida will 
still not reach parity with California--Florida will only be receiving 
about $400 per person living in poverty. Yet the Feinstein amendment 
will give California $160 million additional over the next 5 years.
  Providing States like California with additional money, when they 
already receive more Federal dollars per recipient than almost any 
other State--does not mean equity to me. I urge my colleagues to 
support the underlying bill and vote against the Feinstein amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak for as much time 
as I may use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized. She has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In deference to my opponents on this issue, and I 
very much respect them, there is really a difference in viewpoint here.
  Let me explain where I am coming from. For more than a half a 
century, the way the Federal allocation has been determined has been 
based on a State determination of benefit level, so a State decides 
what its cost of living is, how much it needs to sustain a poor family, 
and sets that amount. And then the Federal Government matches that 
amount.
  Suddenly, what is being said, as I hear it, is those States that had 
low benefit levels or what amounts to a very low maintenance of effort 
are now going to be rewarded with a growth fund. California's grant is 
$607 a month because California decided that the basic cost of living 
necessary for a family was at least that. And California would put up 
one half of it. If a State like Alabama, for example, decides that they 
only want to put up $164, then the Federal Government only matches a 
percentage of that amount.
  Where the arguments made on the other side of the aisle do not ring 
true to me is only 19 States are benefited in the Dole bill with the 
growth fund. That means any other State that has growth is not going to 
get any money under this bill.
  In the Feinstein amendment, 28 States have a net benefit over the 
language. Let me tell you which they are and what the additional annual 
amount is, over and above the Dole bill, by the fifth year.
  Alaska, $2,029,000; California, $64,922,000; Delaware, $1,217,000; 
Hawaii, $2,840,000; Idaho, $289,000; Illinois, $9,062,000; Indiana, 
$6.627 million; Iowa, $2.164 million; Kansas, $3.381 million; Kentucky, 
$4.058 million; Maryland, $6.763 million; Michigan, $5.275 million; 
Minnesota, $5.816 million; Missouri, $4.058 million; Nebraska, $1.758 
million; Nevada, $2.488 million, New Hampshire, $812,000, New Jersey, 
$5.545 million; New York, $1.217 million; North Dakota, $135,000. Ohio, 
$7.709 million; Oklahoma, $2.840 million; Oregon, $7.304 million; 
Pennsylvania, $5.004 million; Vermont, $271,000. State of Washington, 
$16.095 million; West Virginia, $541,000. Wisconsin, $6.492 million;
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the comparison tables be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS UNDER THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT, WITH GRANT   
          ADJUSTED IN FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND FISCAL YEAR 2000 FOR CHANGE IN POPULATION THE FEINSTEIN BILL         
   [Share of change in population is used as a proxy for share of change in the poverty population (dollars in  
                                                   thousands)]                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Dollar     Percentage
        State              1996         1997         1998         1999         2000       change:      change:  
                                                                                         1996-2000    1996-2000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..............     $106,858     $108,297     $109,698     $111,189     $112,674       $5,816         5.44
Alaska...............       66,348       66,838       67,295       67,726       68,377        2,029         3.06
Arizona..............      230,462      232,881      235,383      237,941      240,606       10,144         4.40
Arkansas.............       59,900       60,604       61,351       62,163       62,875        2,976         4.97
California...........    3,685,571    3,700,973    3,716,869    3,733,403    3,750,492       64,922         1.76
Colorado.............      130,713      133,163      135,698      138,193      140,857       10,144         7.76
Connecticut..........      247,498      247,498      247,498      247,498      247,498            0         0.00
Delaware.............       30,239       30,546       30,807       31,125       31,457        1,217         4.03
District of Columbia.       95,882       95,882       95,882       95,882       95,882            0         0.00
Florida..............      581,871      589,311      596,826      604,409      612,167       30,297         5.21
Georgia..............      359,139      362,691      366,395      370,162      374,017       14,878         4.14
Hawaii...............       94,964       95,607       96,289       97,031       97,805        2,840         2.99
Idaho................       33,696       34,584       35,589       36,550       37,483        3,787        11.24
Illinois.............      583,219      585,485      587,699      590,010      592,281        9,062         1.55
Indiana..............      227,031      228,623      230,249      232,050      233,658        6,627         2.92
Iowa.................      133,938      134,459      134,948      135,513      136,102        2,164         1.62
Kansas...............      111,743      112,569      113,383      114,302      115,124        3,381         3.03
Kentucky.............      188,447      189,457      190,403      191,399      192,504        4,058         2.15
Louisiana............      164,016      164,751      165,468      166,280      166,992        2,976         1.81
Maine................       76,333       76,333       76,333       76,333       76,333            0         0.00
Maryland.............      246,947      248,693      250,418      252,065      253,710        6,763         2.74
Massachusetts........      487,449      487,449      487,449      487,449      487,449            0         0.00
Michigan.............      806,641      808,049      809,417      810,774      811,915        5,275         0.65
Minnesota............      287,137      288,546      290,040      291,468      292,953        5,816         2.03
Mississippi..........       87,038       87,559       88,111       88,711       89,337        2,299         2.64
Missouri.............      232,505      233,454      234,461      235,556      236,562        4,058         1.75
Montana..............       44,948       45,346       45,768       46,129       46,706        1,758         3.91
Nebraska.............       60,384       60,782       61,141       61,664       62,142        1,758         2.91
Nevada...............       35,964       37,495       38,993       40,688       42,186        6,222        17.30

[[Page S 13205]]
                                                                                                                
New Hampshire........       42,577       42,791       43,019       43,167       43,388          812         1.91
New Jersey...........      417,198      418,698      420,101      421,430      422,743        5,545         1.33
New Mexico...........      129,839      130,788      131,795      132,890      133,897        4,058         3.13
New York.............    2,308,405    2,308,986    2,309,604    2,309,487    2,309,622        1,217         0.05
North Carolina.......      347,837      350,991      354,210      357,580      361,092       13,255         3.81
North Dakota.........       25,978       26,009       25,978       26,077       25,113          135         0.52
Ohio.................      769,144      771,073      772,930      774,852      776,853        7,709         1.00
Oklahoma.............      166,123      166,736      167,385      168,190      168,964        2,840         1.71
Oregon...............      183,038      184,753      186,509      188,353      190,342        7,304         3.99
Pennsylvania.........      658,388      659,705      660,975      662,226      663,392        5,004         0.76
Rhode Island.........       92,633       92,633       92,633       92,633       92,633            0          0.0
South Carolina.......      103,291      104,607      105,941      107,326      108,836        5,545         5.37
South Dakota.........       23,019       23,264       23,524       23,708       24,101        1,082         4.70
Tennessee............      205,981      208,063      210,209      212,476      214,772        8,791         4.27
Texas................      507,442      516,873      526,435      536,672      546,800       39,359         7.76
Utah.................       83,847       85,133       85,560       88,079       89,663        5,816         6.94
Vermont..............       49,365       49,457       49,555       49,661       49,636          271         0.55
Virginia.............      175,260      178,015      180,812      183,625      186,486       11,226         6.41
Washington...........      432,328      436,033      439,963      444,039      448,423       16,095         3.72
West Virginia........      119,017      119,140      119,269      119,411      119,558          541         0.45
Wisconsin............      334,783      336,345      337,938      339,606      341,275        6,492         1.94
Wyoming..............       23,275       23,490       23,717       23,964       24,222          947         4.07
                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. total.......   16,695,648   16,781,508   16,868,924   16,959,116   17,050,958      355,310         2.14
                      ==========================================================================================
One-year, year-to-                                                                                              
 year change.........  ...........       85,860       87,416       90,192       91,842  ...........  ...........
One-year amount over                                                                                            
 fiscal year 1996                                                                                               
 grant...............            0       85,860      173,276      263,468      355,310  ...........  ...........
Cumulative amount                                                                                               
 over fiscal year                                                                                               
 1996 grant..........            0       85,860      259,136      522,604      877,914  ...........  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table prepared by The Congressional Research Service [CRS] Fiscal year 1996 allocations are based on the
  Federal share of expenditures for AFDC, EA, and Title IV-A child care plus the JOBS grant. Adjustments for    
  poverty population assume no change in State poverty rates. Therefore, percentage increases are based on      
  percentage increases in total State population. Change in State population are based on Census Bureau         
  projections of the population for the States.                                                                 



       TABLE 2.--PROPOSED ALLOCATIONS TO THE STATES UNDER S. 1120, FISCAL YEARS 1996-2000 (THE DOLE BILL)       
                                             [Dollars in thousands]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year--                              Dollar     Percentage
        State         -----------------------------------------------------------------   change:      change:  
                           1996         1997         1998         1999         2000      1996-2000    1996-2000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..............     $106,858     $109,530     $112,268     $115,075     $117,951       11,093         10.4
Alaska...............       66,348       66,348       66,348       66,348       66,348            0          0.0
Arizona..............      230,462      236,223      242,129      284,182      254,386       23,925         10.4
Arkansas.............       59,900       61,397       62,932       64,506       66,118        6,218         10.4
California...........    3,685,571    3,685,571    3,685,571    3,685,571    3,685,571            0          0.0
Colorado.............      130,713      133,981      137,330      140,764      144,283       13,570         10.4
Connecticut..........      247,498      247,498      247,498      247,498      247,498            0          0.0
Delaware.............       30,239       30,239       30,239       30,239       30,239            0          0.0
District of Columbia.       95,882       95,882       95,882       95,882       95,882            0          0.0
Florida..............      581,871      596,417      611,328      626,611      642,276       60,406         10.4
Georgia..............      359,139      368,117      377,320      386,753      396,422       37,283         10.4
Hawaii...............       94,964       94,964       94,964       94,964       94,964            0          0.0
Idaho................       33,696       34,538       35,402       36,287       37,194        3,498         10.4
Illinois.............      583,219      583,219      583,219      583,219      583,219            0          0.0
Indiana..............      227,031      227,031      227,031      227,031      227,031            0          0.0
Iowa.................      133,938      133,938      133,938      133,938      133,938            0          0.0
Kansas...............      111,743      111,743      111,743      111,743      111,743            0          0.0
Kentucky.............      188,447      188,447      188,447      188,447      188,447            0          0.0
Louisiana............      164,016      168,117      172,320      176,628      181,043       17,027         10.4
Maine................       76,333       76,333       76,333       76,333       76,333            0          0.0
Maryland.............      246,947      246,947      246,947      246,947      246,947            0          0.0
Massachusetts........      487,449      487,449      487,449      487,449      487,449            0          0.0
Michigan.............      806,641      806,641      806,641      806,641      806,641           0.          0.0
Minnesota............      287,137      287,137      287,137      287,137      287,137            0          0.0
Mississippi..........       87,038       89,214       91,444       93,730       96,074        9,036         10.4
Missouri.............      232,505      232,505      232,505      232,505      232,505            0          0.0
Montana..............       44,948       46,071       47,223       48,404       49,614        4,666         10.4
Nebraska.............       60,384       60,384       60,384       60,384       60,384            0          0.0
Nevada...............       35,964       36,863       37,785       38,729       39,698        3,734         10.4
New Hampshire........       42,577       42,577       42,577       42,577       42,577            0          0.0
New Jersey...........      417,198      417,198      417,198      417,198      417,198            0          0.0
New Mexico...........      129,839      133,085      136,412      139,823      143,318       13,479         10.4
New York.............    2,308,405    2,308,405    2,308,405    2,308,405    2,308,405            0          0.0
North Carolina.......      347,837      356,533      365,446      374,582      383,947       36,110         10.4
North Dakota.........       25,978       25,978       25,978       25,978       25,978            0          0.0
Ohio.................      769,144      769,144      769,144      769,144      769,144            0          0.0
Oklahoma.............      166,123      166,123      166,123      166,123      166,123            0          0.0
Oregon...............      183,038      183,038      183,038      183,038      183,038            0          0.0
Pennsylvania.........      658,388      658,388      658,388      658,388      658,388            0          0.0
Rhode Island.........       92,633       92,633       92,633       92,633       92,633            0          0.0
South Carolina.......      103,291      105,873      108,520      111,233      114,014       10,723         10.4
South Dakota.........       23,019       23,594       23,594       24,184       24,184        1,165          5.1
Tennessee............      205,981      211,130      216,409      221,819      227,364       21,383         10.4
Texas................      507,442      520,128      533,131      546,459      560,121       52,679         10.4
Utah.................       83,847       85,943       88,092       90,294       92,551        8,704         10.4
Vermont..............       49,365       49,365       49,365       49,365       49,365            0          0.0
Virginia.............      175,260      179,641      184,132      188,735      193,454       18,194         10.4
Washington...........      432,328      432,328      432,328      432,328      432,328            0          0.0
West Virginia........      119,017      119,017      119,017      119,017      119,017            0          0.0
Wisconsin............      334,783      334,783      334,783      334,783      334,783            0          0.0
Wyoming..............       23,275       23,857       24,454       25,065       25,692        2,416         10.4
                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals...........   16,695,648   16,781,508   16,868,924   16,959,116   17,050,958  ...........  ...........
                      ==========================================================================================
Year-to-year change..  ...........       85,860       87,416       90,192       91,842  ...........  ...........
One year amount over                                                                                            
 fiscal year 1996                                                                                               
 grant...............  ...........       85,860      173,276      263,468      355,310  ...........  ...........
Cumulative amount                                                                                               
 over fiscal year                                                                                               
 1996 grant..........  ...........       85,860      259,136      522,604      877,914  ...........  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Estimates prepared by CRS based on financial data on AFDC and related programs from the Department of   
  Health and Human Services [DHHS] and poverty and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.                 


                                                                                                                

[[Page S 13206]]
     TABLE 3.--COMPARISON OF STATE ALLOCATIONS: PROPOSAL TO ADJUST THE GRANT EVERY TWO YEARS FOR CHANGES IN     
                     POPULATION COMPARED WITH S. 1120 (CHANGE FROM DOLE BILL WITH FEINSTEIN)                    
[Changes in population are used as a proxy for changes in poverty population in proposal (dollars in thousands)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Dollar  
               State                    1996         1997         1998         1999         2000        change  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...........................           $0      -$1,232      -$2,570      -$3,886      -$5,277      -$5,277
Alaska............................            0          490          947        1,378        2,029        2,029
Arizona...........................            0       -3,343       -6,745      -10,240      -13,781      -13,781
Arkansas..........................            0         -793       -1,581       -2,342       -3,243       -3,243
California........................            0       15,402       31,298       47,832       64,992       64,922
Colorado..........................            0         -818       -1,632       -2,571       -3,426       -3,426
Connecticut.......................            0            0            0            0            0            0
Delaware..........................            0          306          568          886        1,217        1,217
District of Columbia..............            0            0            0            0            0            0
Florida...........................            0       -7,106      -14,502      -22,202      -30,109      -30,109
Georgia...........................            0       -5,426      -10,925      -16,591      -22,405      -22,405
Hawaii............................            0          643        1,325        2,067        2,840        2,840
Idaho.............................            0           46          187          263          289          289
Illinois..........................            0        2,266        4,480        6,791        9,062        9,062
Indiana...........................            0        1,592        3,218        5,019        6,627        6,627
Iowa..............................            0          521        1,010        1,575        2,164        2,164
Kansas............................            0          827        1,641        2,559        3,381        3,381
Kentucky..........................            0        1,010        1,956        2,953        4,058        4,058
Louisiana.........................            0       -3,366       -6,852      -10,348      -14,051      -14,051
Maine.............................            0            0            0            0            0            0
Maryland..........................            0        1,745        3,471        5,118        6,763        6,763
Massachusetts.....................            0            0            0            0            0            0
Michigan..........................            0        1,409        2,776        4,134        5,275        5,275
Minnesota.........................            0        1,409        2,903        4,330        5,816        5,816
Mississippi.......................            0       -1,655       -3,334       -5,019       -6,736       -6,736
Missouri..........................            0          949        1,956        3,051        4,058        4,058
Montana...........................            0         -726       -1,455       -2,275       -2,908       -2,908
Nebraska..........................            0          398          757        1,279        1,758        1,758
Nevada............................            0          632        1,208        1,959        2,488        2,488
New Hampshire.....................            0          214          442          591          812          812
New Jersey........................            0        1,500        2,903        4,232        5,545        5,545
New Mexico........................            0       -2,297       -4,617       -6,932       -9,421       -9,421
New York..........................            0          582        1,199        1,083        1,217        1,217
North Carolina....................            0       -5,542      -11,236      -17,002      -22,855      -22,855
North Dakota......................            0           31            0           98          135          135
Ohio..............................            0        1,929        3,786        5,708        7,709        7,709
Oklahoma..........................            0          612        1,262        2,067        2,840        2,840
Oregon............................            0        1,715        3,471        5,315        7,304        7,304
Pennsylvania......................            0        1,317        2,587        3,838        5,004        5,004
Rhode Island......................            0            0            0            0            0            0
South Carolina....................            0       -1,266       -2,579       -3,907       -5,178       -5,178
South Dakota......................            0         -331          -71         -476          -83          -83
Tennessee.........................            0       -3,067       -6,200       -9,342      -12,592      -12,592
Texas.............................            0       -3,255       -6,696       -9,787      -13,320      -13,320
Utah..............................            0         -810       -1,531       -2,215       -2,889       -2,889
Vermont...........................            0           92          189          295          271          271
Virginia..........................            0       -1,626       -3,320       -5,110       -6,968       -6,968
Washington........................            0        3,705        7,635       11,712       16,095       16,095
West Virginia.....................            0          122          252          394          541          541
Wisconsin.........................            0        1,562        3,155        4,823        6,492        6,492
Wyoming...........................            0         -368         -737       -1,101       -1,470       -1,470
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals........................            0            0            0            0            0            0
                                   =============================================================================
Year-to-year change...............            0            0            0            0            0  ...........
One year amount over fiscal year                                                                                
 1996 grant.......................            0            0            0            0            0  ...........
Cumulative amount over fiscal year                                                                              
 1996 grant.......................  ...........            0            0            0            0  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Estimates prepared by CRS based on financial data on AFDC and related programs from the Department of   
  Health and Human Services [DHHS] and poverty and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.                 



  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. These tables show how 28 States would gain as a 
difference between what the Dole bill would give and what this 
amendment would provide. For the most part, many of these are States 
with a higher benefit level. These States have decided they were going 
to spend what they needed to spend to have a poor family be able to 
exist in their States. What I object to about the Dole bill is that a 
State is locked out because a State has had a high benefit level and a 
maintenance of effort and has been willing to provide for their people. 
Now, they are frozen out of the growth fund.
  California, the biggest State, with the most poor people: there is 
nothing in the growth fund for California. And the reason that is being 
given is, well, you do not deserve any money because you fund half of 
$607 a month from California taxpayers to support poor people. So, 
because California and these 27 other States have had a higher 
maintenance of effort, and said we are going to fund poor people, 
suddenly they are left out of any growth fund.
 There is no hold harmless. They are left out. They are locked out, and 
that is what I object to in this language.

  You can come to California, or any high cost-of-living State, and 
attempt to live. And it is very much tougher. This is the way the 
formula has been figured now for over a half century--based on a state 
match. The Hutchison formula is a stark change from that. But it is a 
penalty. And it says if you have funded your poor people in the past, 
as a State, you are now not going to figure into the growth formula.
  So let me say another thing. The House of Representatives in its 
wisdom has passed a formula which is straight across the board based on 
growth in a State. The only difference in what they did and what I am 
suggesting we do is base it on growth of poor people. If a State wants 
to support their poor population, I think that is fine. If they do not, 
what we are saying, if the Hutchison language is accepted, is, 
therefore, the Federal Government should reward them for not doing it 
by providing a growth fund for them. And I frankly cannot agree as 
someone who has participated in local government helping make some of 
these decisions. I simply cannot agree that that is the fair way to do 
it.
  So we have presented this. Again 28 States benefit, I have given the 
amounts. Twenty-two States lose money in this way.
  But I believe it is fair. It is based on a census as ratified by the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 33 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield my 33 seconds.


                           Amendment No. 2501

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, last week I offered an amendment that is 
designed to give States greater authority to crackdown on welfare 
fraud.
  This amendment would allow States to intercept Federal income tax 
refunds in order to recover overpayments of welfare benefits due to 
fraud or error.
  This technique, called tax intercept, would be used as a measure of a 
last resort against former welfare recipients who defraud the system. 
Originally, welfare was designed as a transitional program to help 
people become self-sufficient.
 Many families find themselves 
 
[[Page S 13207]]


in circumstances beyond their control and legitimately need temporary 
help. However, as we all know, far too many individuals abuse the 
system, making public assistance a way of life. This amendment is 
designed to crack down on the persistent fraud problems that plague our 
welfare system.
  It is estimated that welfare overpayments represent about 4 percent 
of payments paid by AFDC, food stamp, and Medicaid programs. Many of 
these overpayments are due to deliberate fraud. This type of abuse is 
an insult both to hard-working taxpayers who struggle daily without 
Government assistance as well as families on welfare who play by the 
rules.
  Currently, a similar tax intercept is reducing fraud successfully in 
the Food Stamp Program in 32 States. My amendment would create a 
similar model for AFDC. It is also designed to protect taxpayer 
privacy.
  Just as important, my amendment would save States at least $250 
million, enabling them to use the savings for those who truly need 
assistance. The most recent estimate of this proposal was done in 1992, 
when the United Council on Welfare Fraud estimated that States could 
save $49 million per year. If a similar analysis were done today, I 
expect the savings from my amendment would be even greater.
  I am pleased this amendment will be accepted. It means getting tough 
on the cheats who abuse our welfare system.
  I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Bryan be added as an 
original cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank my colleague for his cosponsorship and support 
and leadership in this area.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining with Senator 
Pressler as a cosponsor on this amendment to provide States the option 
to use the IRS Federal income tax refund intercept process to try to 
recapture AFDC-type benefit overpayments.
  Some years ago, Congress provided for an IRS Federal income tax 
intercept process to be used to help retrieve child support payment 
arrearages. When an individual is in arrears on his or her child 
support payments, the IRS refund intercept allows the State to notify 
the IRS of the arrearage. If the individual is to receive a Federal 
income tax refund, the IRS can intercept the refund. Rather than having 
the tax refund go directly to the individual, the refund amount is 
intercepted and paid toward the child support arrearage.
  As I know a number of my colleagues have also done in their home 
States, I have spent significant time this year visiting welfare 
offices in both northern and southern Nevada. During those visits, I 
spent a significant amount of time listening to welfare eligibility 
workers. It surprised me to learn from these eligibility workers that 
State welfare agencies did not have the authority to notify the IRS to 
intercept Federal income tax refunds to try to recapture benefit 
overpayments for AFDC-type cash assistance.
  My experience in spending time with those who are actually involved 
in the welfare program, who administer it on a day-to-day basis, has 
been enormously helpful to me. They have helped explain some of the 
complexities in our welfare system, some of its inconsistencies and 
some of its frustrations that welfare workers experience when our best 
intended policies are hopelessly inconsistent, or when they find their 
hands tied because of some nonsensical rule that requires them to do 
certain things.
  This is why I am particularly pleased to join on as an original 
cosponsor of the Pressler-Bryan amendment. This amendment provides an 
answer to one of those frustrations. When benefit overpayments are made 
in AFDC-type cash assistance programs under this bill, State welfare 
agencies will now have the IRS refund intercept process available to 
them.
  Unfortunately, many times welfare recipients who receive benefit 
overpayments, and most frequently this occurs in the AFDC program, are 
able to walk away knowing they are not going to have to repay the 
benefit overage. Those individuals essentially have been unjustly 
enriched as a result of a fraudulent overpayment made to them. When 
they later qualify for a Federal income tax refund, the States are 
powerless to try to intercept that refund, and recapture the money 
rightfully due the State.
  Under the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota and 
myself, we now add a new category to cover those individuals who have 
received benefit overpayment by reason of their fraud, or for whatever 
reason the circumstances led to the overpayment. Now States are 
empowered, through the IRS, to intercept any tax refund check that 
would otherwise be paid to that welfare recipient. And as the Senator 
from South Dakota has pointed out, the amount of savings to the 
taxpayers is enormous. This amendment makes a lot of sense. Expanding 
the IRS refund intercept process to AFDC-type benefit overpayments 
makes common sense, and allows all States greater flexibility in the 
administration of the welfare system.
   I applaud the Senator for his leadership and associate myself with 
his comments on this important amendment. This is the kind of 
bipartisan work that I am delighted to participate in, and which can 
help make this welfare reform proposal workable for the States.
  I thank my colleague. I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. If we could deal with this amendment, it has been 
cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the consideration of amendment 2501.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2501.

  Mr. PRESSLER. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
considered as read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Friday, September 8, 
1995, edition of the Record.)
  Mr. PRESSLER. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 2501) was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________